For all intents and purposes they've achieved it.

I wonder also what might be happening in the background in terms of US efforts to discourage European initiatives to improve their independence.

Well this is disappointing.

If this is how we are going to present ourselves then can we at least stop claiming that we are some sort beacon for international rule of law?

Sometimes hard things are hard. We should do the hard thing, stand up to the bully and pay the bill for doing the right thing

We do not need to be his friend.

Then we start to hear the echoes of American right wing tactics in the fringes of conservative politics and make the mistake of assuming it's just a few nuts.

And that is exactly how we end up with leaders like Smith and Poilievre.

Let's not make the mistake of assuming it can't get even worse.

I don't disagree. I'm just hesitant to criticize this knowing charities are often challenged to raise sufficient funds to support people who depend on them without also focusing on policy-makers for creating the situation that necessitates the need for these organizations in the first place.

I don't think it's uncommon for charities to employ these tactics from a marketing perspective as it helps with future fundraising by showing impact of donations.

What's wildly inappropriate to me are the policy decisions that lead to sizeable populations being food insecure in the first place.

When Trump is gone that MAGA movement will still exist. It has broad support and access to massive resources.

The problem is not going away until fundamental changes, at a societal level, are made.

Agreed. Societies should be judged by how they treat their most vulnerable citizens. Not by how successful they are in making the rest of us afraid of them.